If the Conservatives don't back McCain?

**SkiCougar** · 02-10-2008, 09:55 PM

The conservatives may back mccain with money, but theyre not going to get wild-eye yuppies to go knock on doors or soccer moms to drive over to the voting booth. McCain is just not very likeable, old and not inspiring at all.

Both hillary and obama will blow him away in every debate. he just doesnt have the style or temperment to come off well.

And the democrats will blow him away with charges of being another 4 years of Bush. Mitt or Huck may have been able to get away with being for change but McCain can't and he's not even trying. Hil, Obama, Mitt and Huck all figured that's what the people want, but McCain likes to dance to his own tune and not listen to anybody. Say what you will about GW, but he at least tried to go with what the GOP wanted as far as taxes, oil and the environment is concerned.

If you're a GOPer, it's going to be a blood bath, McCain will have no coattails, lose more seats in congress and even cause losses in state races.

The best shot the GOP has is for Obama to win the presidency and screw it up by being in over his head, Hillary and Bill know what to do when they get in and will hold it for another 8 years.

And I say all this as a far right conservative who has campaigned for GW and other GOPers all over the country since 2002. Neither sides have performed well for 4 years, but the GOP officeholders continue to do what they dam well please(as evidenced by rush, savage and hannity losing it on a daily basis) and it's going to continue to cost them.

**Adolf Allerbush** · 02-11-2008, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin Garnett

that in the democratic caucus in washington, the people who take part in the process are more likely to be in a demographic (among only democrats, this is the a primary genius) that is dominated by obama. thusly, if you are paying attentions to trends in this election you might have predicted washington to go the way it did. as such i was not surprised obama won there.

is that hard to understand?

Makes sense. I just didn't understand what you were getting at.

**Adolf Allerbush** · 02-11-2008, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by altagirl

You've never heard of exit polls?

My mind has officially been blown.

**Albert Gore** · 02-11-2008, 12:17 PM

you're forgetting the important question: Who am I going to endorse?

**mr_gyptian** · 02-11-2008, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by Squirrel99

That is spot on. The majority of the country has shifted to moderately left-leaning views because the neocons have pushed us so far to the right. To them, anything looks liberal if it's not 'ultra conservative'

I'll preface by saying that it's going to come down to one simple issue for the General Election:

McCain - "I'm not leaving Iraq" "Give me 6 months and I'll sell you the War"
vs.
Obama or Hillary - "I will bring our troops home"

America has had enough of the neocon play. The Democrats are stupid if they don't play up in major advertising and stumping.
There are thousands of photos of McCain stumping for Bush in 2004 - it is easy to draw a correlation for another 4 yrs of Bush and make it stick.

If it's Obama vs. McCain, I predict a landslide victory for Obama
If it's Hillary vs. McCain, I predict a 3%-5% narrow victory by Hillary

FWIW, at today's caucus in Washington - many were overwhelming Obama victories.
Either way you look at the election were 1000000000x better off with anyone than King Bush.

You guys are incorrectly using the term neo-con. These aren't the guys pushing the social and political discourse to the right. Neo-Con's became a presense under the tutelage of Scoop Jackson. A Dem senator. The neo-con's of the Weekly Standard, Irving and Bill Kristol, the Podhoretz's, and their ilk are generally fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and hawkish on foreign policy. How they have supposedly pushed the debate on political issues to the conservative right is beyond me.

edit:

[edit] Neoconservative policies
Irving Kristol, the "god-father" and one of the founders of neoconservatism, stated five basic policies of neoconservatism that distinguish it from other "movements" or "persuasions"[8]. These policies, he claimed, "result in popular Republican presidencies":

Taxes and Federal Budget: "Cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady economic growth. This policy was not invented by neocons, and it was not the particularities of tax cuts that interested them, but rather the steady focus on economic growth." In Kristol's view, neocons are and should be less concerned about balancing fiscal budgets than traditional conservatives: "One sometimes must shoulder budgetary deficits as the cost (temporary, one hopes) of pursuing economic growth."[8]
Size of Government: Kristol distinguishes between Neoconservatives and the call of traditional conservatives for smaller government. "Neocons do not feel ... alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable."[8]
Traditional Moral Values: "The steady decline in our democratic culture, sinking to new levels of vulgarity, does unite neocons with traditional conservatives". Here Kristol distinguishes between traditional conservatives and libertarian conservatives. He cites the shared interest of Neocons and Religious Conservatives in using the government to enforce morality: "Since the Republican party now has a substantial base among the religious, this gives neocons a certain influence and even power."[8]
Expansionist Foreign Policy: "Statesmen should ... distinguish friends from enemies." And according to Kristol, "with power come responsibilities ... if you have the kind of power we now have, either you will find opportunities to use it, or the world will discover them for you."[8]
National Interest: "the United States of today, inevitably ... [will] feel obliged to defend ... a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces ...that is why it was in our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in World War II ... that is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today."

it is people like the Focus on the Family's of the religous right that are guilty of these inane litmus(abortion, second amendment, etc.) tests for Judges, congressman, and presidents atleast in the GOP.

A question I have, is if McCain and Thompson ran a campaign that rebuked the Religous Right, how many independents and Democrats vote for them? Would you?

**Squirrel99** · 02-13-2008, 01:47 AM

Originally Posted by enlosandes

Well said Squirrel. Were you surprised WA went so overwhelmingly to Obama?

Hillary had a lot of presence in WA (and I think all the Lesbians are supporting her

) all kidding aside I wasn't surprised Obama won the caucus here, but more surprised by the margins. You could kind of feel the momentum when he drew 20,000 people to Key Arena for a speech and still had to turn away more than 3,000. Pretty cool- he made sure to go outside for a quick appearance w/bullhorn to greet those who couldn't make it inside.

Overall there's a lot of energy in WA right now on the Democratic side - will be interesting to see how this translates into the Fall.

If Obama gets the nomination, the wave he is riding is only going to get bigger. Honestly I don't think McCain has a chance, unless votes are fixed.

**Squirrel99** · 02-13-2008, 01:54 AM

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

You guys are incorrectly using the term neo-con.

Six words that should scare the crap out of anyone (Republican or Democrat):

Project for a New American Century

Regardless the American people have had enough of the perpetual fearmongering and horrible 'legacy' of the Bush.

**enlosandes** · 02-13-2008, 06:40 AM

Originally Posted by Squirrel99

Regardless the American people have had enough of the perpetual fearmongering and horrible 'legacy' of the Bush.

As much as I would like to agree, there are kooks like YSE and squishy face people in the midwest that have fallen for the lies and will vote for another protector of the "radical Islamic extremists".

**RootSkier** · 02-13-2008, 09:41 AM

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

A question I have, is if McCain and Thompson ran a campaign that rebuked the Religous Right, how many independents and Democrats vote for them? Would you?

I don't think so, for a couple reasons.

First, many I's and D's are anti war, and McCain and Thompson are huge cheerleaders for war. McCain seems to actually LIKE war, I mean shit, he said it's OK if we are in Iraq for 10,000 years. That line right there will cost him a million votes.

Second, there are plenty of I's and D's who actually believe we have a responsibility to help our fellow man, and that the conservative philosophy is selfish and favors the rich. I don't intend to argue this case here, I'm just saying that this is what people feel.

**mr_gyptian** · 02-13-2008, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by RootSkier

I don't think so, for a couple reasons.

First, many I's and D's are anti war, and McCain and Thompson are huge cheerleaders for war. McCain seems to actually LIKE war, I mean shit, he said it's OK if we are in Iraq for 10,000 years. That line right there will cost him a million votes.

Second, there are plenty of I's and D's who actually believe we have a responsibility to help our fellow man, and that the conservative philosophy is selfish and favors the rich. I don't intend to argue this case here, I'm just saying that this is what people feel.

I didn't realize you had the pulse of the people.

And not to go George Patton on you, but as the surge continues to turn the tide in Iraq you will see quite a few Americans that like war when we are winning. I couldn't find where McCain said it is ok for us to be in Iraq for 10k years. but I doubt the figurative 1mm votes were his in the first place.

**Jer** · 02-13-2008, 12:00 PM

Here's the pulse of the people: McCain to lose, 65% probability. And you could still make a killing betting against him.

Takin' money from fools, dude - you know that's what you're all about, so go get it.

**mr_gyptian** · 02-13-2008, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by David Witherspoon

Here's the pulse of the people: McCain to lose, 65% probability. And you could still make a killing betting against him.

Takin' money from fools, dude - you know that's what you're all about, so go get it.

I'm equal opportunity.

**RootSkier** · 02-13-2008, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

I didn't realize you had the pulse of the people.

Well, don't ask for opinions if you don't want to hear them.

I have yet to hear ANYONE give a satisfactory explanation of what, exactly, victory will look like in Iraq. A democratically elected Islamist government? That will be swell.

**spindrift** · 02-13-2008, 07:03 PM

Originally Posted by Squirrel99

If Obama gets the nomination, the wave he is riding is only going to get bigger. Honestly I don't think McCain has a chance, unless votes are fixed.

I disagree. Karl Rove most assuredly has a laboratory in his secret Volcano Lair where he and his pals are cloning flying monkeys at a prodigious rate. When he lets them loose, watch out. Obama is incredibly vulnerable from a number of angles. I see the wave he is on now - but that wave is only among a certain set of Democrats in certain places. And his team has been adept at dodging issues with the family, as it were, that will be un-dodgable in a broader context. A general election will be a very different breed of cat - both in character and the strange mechanics of the electoral college.

I'm betting the the top Republican strategists are praying for Obama to get the nod...

**Adolf Allerbush** · 02-13-2008, 07:08 PM

So, did we ever figure out who would be the VP if McCain gets the nod. What about Obama? I can't imagine McCain would be dumb enough to slay is campain by having Huckabee or Romney join up. And I think Mrs. Clinton is above being VP to Obama.

**mr_gyptian** · 02-13-2008, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

So, did we ever figure out who would be the VP if McCain gets the nod. What about Obama? I can't imagine McCain would be dumb enough to slay is campain by having Huckabee or Romney join up. And I think Mrs. Clinton is above being VP to Obama.

six years in the senate accomplishing exactly nothing, and eight years explaining your husband's infidelities and you're overqualified for the office of the VP???

WoW.

**Adolf Allerbush** · 02-13-2008, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

six years in the senate accomplishing exactly nothing, and eight years explaining your husband's infidelities and you're overqualified for the office of the VP???

WoW.

Mr. G, I agree. I don't think she's over qualified...I think she thinks she is though. No way she'd be Obama's running mate...and I don't think he'd want her anyway.

**spindrift** · 02-13-2008, 07:35 PM

If a guy had HRC's experience and credentials you'd be kissing his ass.

What are McCain's credentials? Former POW and current doddering idiot member of senate who is willing to pander to religious nuts (and may well be one himself), member of the Keating 5, and guy who had an affair & dumped his disabled wife for the new model in a manner that makes him look like substantially weaker sauce than Bill on the issue? Get real... WRT credentials, experience, intellectual horsepower, and even ethics - Clinton makes McCain look like an impotent sniveling wreck. And I don't even like her voting track record...

**RootSkier** · 02-13-2008, 07:50 PM

Seriously spindrift, I realize we don't agree on much, but tell me this:

Hillary is about to lose. The Clintons play dirty, as dirty as anyone...if they had something on Obama, do you really believe they wouldn't have already trotted it out?

edit: and to anyone suggesting an Obama/Hillary ticket (or vice versa), get the fuck off TGR and go inform yourself of the impossibility of this situation.

edit again:

**Adolf Allerbush** · 02-13-2008, 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by spindrift

If a guy had HRC's experience and credentials you'd be kissing his ass.

What are McCain's credentials? Former POW and current doddering idiot member of senate who is willing to pander to religious nuts (and may well be one himself), member of the Keating 5, and guy who had an affair & dumped his disabled wife for the new model in a manner that makes him look like substantially weaker sauce than Bill on the issue? Get real... WRT credentials, experience, intellectual horsepower, and even ethics - Clinton makes McCain look like an impotent sniveling wreck. And I don't even like her voting track record...

You talking to me? Trust me man, I like HRC over McCain. The dude is insanely too old to be president. I imagine my grandfather at his age, already retired for 15 years, driving a motorhome, fishing, drinking, and chilling...then I think of him trying to run the country. Yeah, terrible fucking idea. McCain should step down from his senate seat and retire. At most he should be touring around trying to recruit new neocons.

All I'm saying about HRC is that she is either too pround or too self absorbed to be Obama's runningmate.

**enlosandes** · 02-13-2008, 08:04 PM

Nice to see this thread is still getting play. Hard to believe we are still 9 months off. On a side note, I was just watching OReilly factor on Fox. Am I the only one that thinks between Bill OReilly and Dick Morris, they may be the two biggest tools ever?

doughboyshredder · 02-13-2008, 08:06 PM

Originally Posted by steve

perhaps, but as much as I like that idea, non-corruption does not equal good, much less invulnerability to corruption.
i'd take a machine neo-con before an honest communist.

You should have more respect for honesty.

If I am reading this correctly you would rather have a bold faced liar, than an honest man in office, as long as that bold faced liar was a neo con? I guess you got your wish with bushy boy.

**RootSkier** · 02-13-2008, 08:08 PM

steve <hearts> bush

**concretejungle** · 02-13-2008, 08:18 PM

Originally Posted by steve

perhaps, but as much as I like that idea, non-corruption does not equal good, much less invulnerability to corruption.
i'd take a machine neo-con before an honest communist.

Wow, just fucking wow. In your world a slightly left of center democrat is worse than a tax and spend republican like Bush, who was propped up by neo-cons do do their bidding (he's not that smart, by the way). Well at least we got that out of the way.

**spindrift** · 02-13-2008, 08:20 PM

Originally Posted by RootSkier

Seriously spindrift, I realize we don't agree on much, but tell me this:

Hillary is about to lose. The Clintons play dirty, as dirty as anyone...if they had something on Obama, do you really believe they wouldn't have already trotted it out?

edit: and to anyone suggesting an Obama/Hillary ticket (or vice versa), get the fuck off TGR and go inform yourself of the impossibility of this situation.

edit again:...

No. I think they play far less dirty than people have been led to believe. The whole "dishonorable" and "will do anything" thing is an effective PR ploy. Look at the standards of the game the past 10 years. Get a grip.

As for the decline in Dems you referred to via your image- go look into Clinton's responsible economic policies and the price the Dems paid for them. Every time you think about the happy debt/deficit picture at the end of Clinton's tenure (vs the economic cesspool we are in now), you should reflect on this. The public let themselves be turned into tools under the influence of Republican anti-tax rhetoric. Clinton did the right stuff. His party paid. The very people who voted for those Republicans paid. End of story.

And might I add that the general public remained tools - wrt to economic and tax issues - leading up to and during Bush's watch & they were in effect robbed blind by a host of Bush economic policies. I hope everyone enjoys their "tax breaks" this year...